DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 08/05/2025.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
After careful review of the original specification, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See MPEP §2111.01 IV.
Terms such as “when”, “if”, “only if”, “on the condition”, “in the event” and “in a case where” are representative of optional limitations; therefore, optional or conditional language do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted.
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 08/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the limitations of the independent claims, the rejections have been updated below to address the amended claims.
With regard to claim 11, the common knowledge declared to be well-known in the art is hereby taken to be admitted prior art because the Applicant either failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE or failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE adequately. See MPEP §2144.03. To adequately traverse the examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE, the Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE would be inadequate. Support for the Applicant’s assertion of should be included.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hambleton et al. (USPGP 2011/0258128 A1) hereinafter HAMBLETON, in view of Smith et al. (USPGP 2011/0010720 A1, hereinafter SMITH.
Claims 1, 12, 13:
HAMBLETON as shown below discloses the following limitations:
an event acquisition unit which acquires, in response to provision of a resource that is to be recycled, a collection event of the resource; (see at least paragraphs 0039-0044, Figures 1-3 as well as associated and related text)
a provider information acquisition unit which acquires provider identification information for identifying a provider who has provided the resource; (see at least paragraphs 0081, 0089, 0092)
a provider recording unit which records an association between collection event identification information for identifying the collection event of the resource and the provider identification information of the provider of the resource in a provider database; (see at least paragraphs 0031, 0034, 0044)
a trace processing unit which traces a recycling process for the resource by using the collection event of the resource, (see at least paragraphs 0013, 0039, 0044, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0078, 0083, 0146)
an information provision unit which informs the provider of the resource which is set as the process target that the resource has been processed in response to acquisition of the process event, (see at least paragraphs 0046, 0049, 0050)
wherein the event acquisition unit acquires a process event of the resource in response to a process to be performed on the resource, the trace processing unit records, in a trace information database, an association between the process event and the collection event of the resource which is set as a process target in the process event, (see at least paragraphs 0013, 0039, 0044, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0078, 0083, 0146)
the resource including one or more resources, the trace information database records, as disclosed information, the association between the process event and the collection event of the resource which is set as the process target in the process event, (see at least paragraphs 0013, 0039, 0044, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0078, 0083, 0146)
the resource including one or more resources, and the provider includes a plurality of providers, and the provider database records, as non-disclosure information, the association between the collection event identification information and the provider identification information with regard to one of the providers. (see at least paragraphs 0013, 0039, 0044, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0078, 0083, 0146)
the information provision unit acquires the collection event associated with the process event from the trace information database, and acquires the provider identification information associated with the collection event that is acquired from the provider database. (see at least paragraphs 0031, 0040, 0047)
HAMBLETON does not specifically disclose non-disclosure information. However, SMITH, in at least paragraph 0196 discloses protecting sensitive data. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of HAMBLETON with the technique of SMITH because, “…what is needed is a recycling system or program that not only provides the data management activities associated with the collection of recyclables, but incorporates methods and techniques that elicit positive behavioral changes in the participants, which will lead to participation rates that are significantly higher than those obtained with current programs.” (HAMBLETON: paragraph 0016). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claim 3:
The combination of HAMBLETON/SMITH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HAMBLETON further discloses:
wherein the provider information acquisition unit receives, from a collection apparatus provided in a collection location,
the provider identification information received by the collection apparatus from a communication terminal of the provider and collection apparatus identification information for identifying the collection apparatus.
See at least paragraphs 0013, 0039, 0044, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0078, 0083, and 0146.
Claim 4:
The combination of HAMBLETON/SMITH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HAMBLETON further discloses:
wherein the provider information acquisition unit receives collection apparatus identification information for identifying a collection apparatus provided in a collection location and the provider identification information from a communication terminal of the provider.
See at least paragraphs 0013, 0039, 0044, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0078, 0083, and 0146; Figure 2 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 5:
The combination of HAMBLETON/SMITH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HAMBLETON further discloses:
wherein the provider information acquisition unit specifies the provider who has provided the resource to a collection location based on a location of a communication terminal of the provider.
See at least paragraphs 0013, 0039, 0044, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0078, 0083, and 0146; Figure 2 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 6:
The combination of HAMBLETON/SMITH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HAMBLETON further discloses:
wherein the trace processing unit records, based on location information of a collection vehicle which collects the resource, an association between the collection event of the one or more resources and the process event indicating pickup of the one or more resources by the collection vehicle in the trace information database.
See at least paragraphs 0013, 0039, 0044, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0078, 0083, and 0146; Figure 2 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 7, 8:
The combination of HAMBLETON/SMITH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HAMBLETON further discloses:
wherein the event acquisition unit acquires a second process event of the resource in response to a second process to be performed on the resource on which a first process has been performed, and the trace processing unit further records, in the trace information database, an association between the second process event and a first process event acquired in response to the first process having been performed.
wherein the first process includes a plurality of first processes, the resource includes a plurality of resources, the first process event includes a plurality of first process events, and after the plurality of resources are respectively processed by the plurality of first processes, in response to the plurality of resources to be processed by the second process, the trace processing unit records, in the trace information database, associations between the second process event and the plurality of first process events respectively acquired in response to the plurality of first processes.
See at least paragraphs 0013, 0039, 0044, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0078, 0083, and 0146; Figure 2 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 9:
The combination of HAMBLETON/SMITH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HAMBLETON further discloses:
wherein in response to detection that a collection vehicle which has collected the resource arrives at a processing plant, the trace processing unit records an association between the collection event with regard to the resource collected by the collection vehicle and the process event to be acquired in response to a process of the resource in the processing plant in the trace information database.
See at least paragraphs 0013, 0039, 0044, 0061, 0071, 0073, 0078, 0083, and 0146; Figure 2 as well as associated and related text.
Claim 10:
The combination of HAMBLETON/SMITH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HAMBLETON further discloses an incentive awarding unit which awards an incentive to the provider of the resource in response to the resource having been recycled. See at least paragraph 0015.
Claim 11 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMBLETON/SMITH and further in view of Applicant’s Own Admissions, hereinafter AOA.
Claim 11:
The combination of HAMBLETON/SMITH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HAMBLETON/SMITH does not specifically disclose wherein the trace processing unit records the collection event and the process event with regard to the resource as a blockchain in the trace information database, the process event including one or more process events. However, the Examiner accepts AOA that it is old and well known in the databased arts that the blockchain is a distributed database. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of HAMBLETON/SMITH because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
EPA. “Hazardous Waste Transportation.” (Jun 30, 2018). Retrieved online 05/16/2025. https://www.epa.gov/hw/hazardous-waste-transportation
EPA. “Management and Disposal of Vehicles Following a Wide Area Incident: Literature Review and Stakeholder Workshop.” (January 2019). Retrieved online 05/16/2025. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=538680&Lab=NHSRC
DTSC. “DTSC Hazardous Waste Transporter Requirements Fact Sheet.” (August 2007). Retrieved online 05/16/2025. https://dtsc.ca.gov/hazardous-waste-transporter-requirements-fact-sheet/
Foreign Art:
OGOSHI et al. “Computer System For Unifying Contents Distribution Service In Office, Has Control Part For Determining Whether Recovered Amount Of Requesters Waste Material Exceeds Threshold Value, Where Content Is Delivered According To Parameter.” (JP 6564157 B1)
HERRON. “Method For Creating Record Data For Authorizing Body Of Waste Disposal Container I.e. Skip, Involves Processing Data Received From Telemetry System To Determine Locations In Which Waste Containers Are Loaded And Unloaded From Vehicles.” (WO 2014/001813 A2)
NEEDHAM. “Incentive System For Incentivizing Recycling Of Recyclable Item E.g. Coffee Cup, Has Transducer Arrangement Converting Mass Of Item Into Electrical Signal For Storage As Additional Identifier Of Item.” (WO 2023/288342 A1)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 08/05/2025 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)